If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Science Daily)   "Junk DNA", "dark matter", "missing heriaibility"--scientists have made some progress in figuring out just what 95% of your DNA is getting up to rather than making proteins. Rare "Hero of Science" tag awarded by Subby   (sciencedaily.com) divider line 69
    More: Hero, Junk DNA, dark matter, proteins, DNA, genomes, scientists, RNA, gene expression  
•       •       •

2681 clicks; posted to Geek » on 20 Sep 2013 at 1:45 PM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



69 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-20 11:56:05 AM
If only subby had mastered the art of cut and paste. or spellcheck.
 
2013-09-20 12:08:26 PM
Oh, so NOW Penn State is studying DNA. Shoulda taken a couple of samples years ago.
 
2013-09-20 01:48:46 PM
So, how long until we get a serious "therefore, creationism instead of evolution" argument presented in this thread?
 
2013-09-20 01:51:04 PM

abb3w: So, how long until we get a serious "therefore, creationism instead of evolution" argument presented in this thread?


Well DNA cannot function without hundreds of preexisting proteins, but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA. Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other. Therefore, the components of these manufacturing systems must have come into existence simultaneously.  This implies creation.
 
2013-09-20 01:56:21 PM

abb3w: So, how long until we get a serious "therefore, creationism instead of evolution" argument presented in this thread?


Not long, apparently.
 
2013-09-20 01:58:08 PM

meat0918: abb3w: So, how long until we get a serious "therefore, creationism instead of evolution" argument presented in this thread?

Well DNA cannot function without hundreds of preexisting proteins, but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA. Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other. Therefore, the components of these manufacturing systems must have come into existence simultaneously.  This implies creation.


except that that is completely not how evolution works. so either you are a troll, completely ignorant, or both
please
we need sarcasm punctuation !!
 
2013-09-20 02:01:38 PM

show me: Oh, so NOW Penn State is studying DNA. Shoulda taken a couple of samples years ago.


Low blow, that means two things.
 
2013-09-20 02:04:27 PM

namatad: meat0918: abb3w: So, how long until we get a serious "therefore, creationism instead of evolution" argument presented in this thread?

Well DNA cannot function without hundreds of preexisting proteins, but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA. Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other. Therefore, the components of these manufacturing systems must have come into existence simultaneously.  This implies creation.

except that that is completely not how evolution works. so either you are a troll, completely ignorant, or both
please
we need sarcasm punctuation !!



I forgot the sarcastic picture, trying again.

i457.photobucket.com

Take a little doubt, add in some incredulity, multiply by "scientists have been wrong before" and voila!

You've created an evolution "skeptic".
 
2013-09-20 02:04:42 PM

meat0918: abb3w: So, how long until we get a serious "therefore, creationism instead of evolution" argument presented in this thread?

Well DNA cannot function without hundreds of preexisting proteins, but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA. Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other. Therefore, the components of these manufacturing systems must have come into existence simultaneously.  This implies creation.



And proteins are composed of sequences of amino acids, which can be found in lots of places including interstellar space.
 
2013-09-20 02:06:36 PM

give me doughnuts: meat0918: abb3w: So, how long until we get a serious "therefore, creationism instead of evolution" argument presented in this thread?

Well DNA cannot function without hundreds of preexisting proteins, but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA. Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other. Therefore, the components of these manufacturing systems must have come into existence simultaneously.  This implies creation.


And proteins are composed of sequences of amino acids, which can be found in lots of places including interstellar space.


Consider the probability of amino acids simultaneously joining together in the exact configuration of your deoxyribonucleic acid sequences. Such an event is statistically impossible. Therefore you must be a divine creation, and not a biological offspring of another organism or pair of organisms.
 
2013-09-20 02:08:31 PM
Ah, the old "if we don't know what it is, it's not important" thing isn't on anymore?
 
2013-09-20 02:12:56 PM
Dimensio:Consider the probability of amino acids simultaneously joining together in the exact configuration of your deoxyribonucleic acid sequences. Such an event is statistically impossible.

That's true, because amino acids form proteins, while nucleotides make DNA chains.
 
2013-09-20 02:14:30 PM

abb3w: So, how long until we get a serious "therefore, creationism instead of evolution" argument presented in this thread?


If necessary I can break out the old Volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica argument.
 
2013-09-20 02:14:48 PM
Also it comes with double the prize money!
 
2013-09-20 02:15:48 PM

show me: Oh, so NOW Penn State is studying DNA. Shoulda taken a couple of samples years ago.


Well these are the first voluntary samples...

//so sorry
 
2013-09-20 02:17:08 PM

sprawl15: abb3w: So, how long until we get a serious "therefore, creationism instead of evolution" argument presented in this thread?

If necessary I can break out the old Volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica argument.


Can you do the "shaking a bag of watch parts"? That's my favorite.
 
2013-09-20 02:19:35 PM

meat0918: This implies creation.


The hell it does, idiot.
 
2013-09-20 02:26:04 PM

mainstreet62: meat0918: This implies creation.

The hell it does, idiot.


I think there is a lot of sarcasm/trolling in this thread and a lot of people are not getting it.
 
2013-09-20 02:29:54 PM

show me: mainstreet62: meat0918: This implies creation.

The hell it does, idiot.

I think there is a lot of sarcasm/trolling in this thread and a lot of people are not getting it.


Sacrasm? On Fark? I doubt that.
 
2013-09-20 02:30:25 PM
UrukHaiGuyz:

Why not both?

Take a small bottle of ink and pour it into a bucket. Now throw a book in that bucket. Shake the bucket. The odds of that book becoming a volume of the Encyclopedia Britannia are zero. Not just infinitesimally small, but zero. Take billions of buckets, shake them for billions of years, and you will never see such a volume, much less one of the new ones that uses multiple colors of ink. "Oh, but this is a flawed experiment," you might say. Of course it is, but I have purposely flawed it in favor of the neo-Darwinist position.

The amount of information within the cell is equivalent to dozens of volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Not just one. So the odds of creating an amount of data equivalent to the cell is just a fraction of zero. "Evolution" would say that shaking the book in the bucket could produce ten or twenty books. Then there is the obvious case of a book being a far simpler device. You simply need to put ink on paper, there's no chemical reactions, no requirement for life, none of that. There just needs to be some bits of ink making up the entry for Catherine the Great. In a cell, the genetic information is not simply written in words, but in the chemical language of God. You can't just shake sand and ashes and create life, that's a far harder result to obtain than shaking ink and paper and getting ink on paper.

And, perhaps more importantly, when we are shaking the bucket to try to make an Encyclopedia, it requires an outside force - us. But when we are talking about the creation of life, who is shaking the 'bucket' of genetic material and producing he who "may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground"? It has to be something external to what we think of as 'life' - an intelligent designer, beyond our ken, who spoke light and made it so.
 
2013-09-20 02:30:47 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: sprawl15: abb3w: So, how long until we get a serious "therefore, creationism instead of evolution" argument presented in this thread?

If necessary I can break out the old Volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica argument.

Can you do the "shaking a bag of watch parts"? That's my favorite.


Is that like - how long would it take for a watch to appear if you shake a bag of parts constantly?

Herp a derp!
 
2013-09-20 02:36:00 PM

Girl Pants: Dimensio:Consider the probability of amino acids simultaneously joining together in the exact configuration of your deoxyribonucleic acid sequences. Such an event is statistically impossible.

That's true, because amino acids form proteins, while nucleotides make DNA chains.


Excuse me, but why should I listen to someone who studies "science" -- which is never certain, and which changes every day -- instead of wonderful men like Mr. Eric Hovind, Mr. Ray Comfort and Mr. Ken Ham, whose information comes from the unchanging Bible?
 
2013-09-20 02:39:34 PM

show me: mainstreet62: meat0918: This implies creation.

The hell it does, idiot.

I think there is a lot of sarcasm/trolling in this thread and a lot of people are not getting it.


I am admittedly terrible at not getting sarcasm on Fark.
 
2013-09-20 02:40:55 PM

mainstreet62: show me: mainstreet62: meat0918: This implies creation.

The hell it does, idiot.

I think there is a lot of sarcasm/trolling in this thread and a lot of people are not getting it.

I am admittedly terrible at not getting sarcasm on Fark.


Poe, poe you.
 
2013-09-20 02:42:01 PM

Wellon Dowd: show me: mainstreet62: meat0918: This implies creation.

The hell it does, idiot.

I think there is a lot of sarcasm/trolling in this thread and a lot of people are not getting it.

Sacrasm? On Fark? I doubt that.


Self-referential posts are all the rage these days.
 
KIA
2013-09-20 02:44:17 PM

Dimensio: information comes from the unchanging Bible?


Has anyone ever explained exactly where the Bible came from?  The same source as the Quaran?  As the Book of Mormon?

The known Bible has changed so many times it's not even funny. The Roman Catholic Church alone has dozens of chapters which it has expunged, including several gospels from various Disciples.  You do remember that there were 12, not just Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, right?

The Bible reads exactly how the Church (or any particular sect of a church) wants it to.  This is why the Dead Sea Scrolls have been so vigorously contested.  They hold a less diluted version of the original and highlight all of the many, many changes which have been made over the centuries.
 
2013-09-20 02:46:25 PM

sprawl15: UrukHaiGuyz:

Why not both?

Take a small bottle of ink and pour it into a bucket. Now throw a book in that bucket. Shake the bucket. The odds of that book becoming a volume of the Encyclopedia Britannia are zero. Not just infinitesimally small, but zero. Take billions of buckets, shake them for billions of years, and you will never see such a volume, much less one of the new ones that uses multiple colors of ink. "Oh, but this is a flawed experiment," you might say. Of course it is, but I have purposely flawed it in favor of the neo-Darwinist position.

The amount of information within the cell is equivalent to dozens of volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Not just one. So the odds of creating an amount of data equivalent to the cell is just a fraction of zero. "Evolution" would say that shaking the book in the bucket could produce ten or twenty books. Then there is the obvious case of a book being a far simpler device. You simply need to put ink on paper, there's no chemical reactions, no requirement for life, none of that. There just needs to be some bits of ink making up the entry for Catherine the Great. In a cell, the genetic information is not simply written in words, but in the chemical language of God. You can't just shake sand and ashes and create life, that's a far harder result to obtain than shaking ink and paper and getting ink on paper.

And, perhaps more importantly, when we are shaking the bucket to try to make an Encyclopedia, it requires an outside force - us. But when we are talking about the creation of life, who is shaking the 'bucket' of genetic material and producing he who "may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground"? It has to be something external to what we think of as 'life' - an intelligent designer, beyond our ken, who spoke light and made it so.


So that's the argument. I hadn't seen it before. Too bad it ignores natural selection, arguably the most important part of evolution.
 
2013-09-20 02:48:15 PM
Roughly translated it reads:

"DEFECTIVE. TERMINATE IMMEDIATELY. DO NOT ALLOW TO REPRODUCE."
 
2013-09-20 02:48:17 PM

show me: So that's the argument. I hadn't seen it before. Too bad it ignores natural selection, arguably the most important part of evolution.


Natural selection would be picking the best encyclopedia that you pour out of a bucket. Since you never get an encyclopedia in the first place, there's nothing to select from

QED.
 
2013-09-20 02:52:21 PM

sprawl15: show me: So that's the argument. I hadn't seen it before. Too bad it ignores natural selection, arguably the most important part of evolution.

Natural selection would be picking the best encyclopedia that you pour out of a bucket. Since you never get an encyclopedia in the first place, there's nothing to select from

QED.


No, natural selection would be to select the two most encyclopedia-like objects out of all of them, mixing their best features, reproducing them billions of times, and starting the process over again. It's not an all-or-nothing one step process. And for fark's sake I hope you are playing devil's advocate and don't really believe that shiat.
 
2013-09-20 02:54:24 PM

show me: sprawl15: show me: So that's the argument. I hadn't seen it before. Too bad it ignores natural selection, arguably the most important part of evolution.

Natural selection would be picking the best encyclopedia that you pour out of a bucket. Since you never get an encyclopedia in the first place, there's nothing to select from

QED.

No, natural selection would be to select the two most encyclopedia-like objects out of all of them, mixing their best features, reproducing them billions of times, and starting the process over again. It's not an all-or-nothing one step process. And for fark's sake I hope you are playing devil's advocate and don't really believe that shiat.


How cute, you think life started with sexual reproduction. But, do tell us about it professor.
 
2013-09-20 02:55:40 PM

show me: No, natural selection would be to select the two most encyclopedia-like objects out of all of them, mixing their best features, reproducing them billions of times, and starting the process over again.


I can't say I've really tried, but I've never heard of someone getting two encyclopedias to mate. And you neo-Darwinists call my beliefs magic!
 
2013-09-20 02:58:23 PM
This thread is the internet nerd version of the drunk tough guy walking down the street screaming "I wish somebody would come and try to tell me they'd kick my ass, man! Id beat all their pussy asses!"

/Not a bad way to waste a workday
 
2013-09-20 02:58:57 PM

Prophet of Loss: show me: sprawl15: show me: So that's the argument. I hadn't seen it before. Too bad it ignores natural selection, arguably the most important part of evolution.

Natural selection would be picking the best encyclopedia that you pour out of a bucket. Since you never get an encyclopedia in the first place, there's nothing to select from

QED.

No, natural selection would be to select the two most encyclopedia-like objects out of all of them, mixing their best features, reproducing them billions of times, and starting the process over again. It's not an all-or-nothing one step process. And for fark's sake I hope you are playing devil's advocate and don't really believe that shiat.

How cute, you think life started with sexual reproduction. But, do tell us about it professor.


I said nothing about how life started, I was giving an example of how natural selection worked in sexual reproduction. But do keep talking out of your ass, Gilligan.
 
2013-09-20 03:00:34 PM

Prophet of Loss: How cute, you think life started with sexual reproduction.


Two questions. First, why would you assume his analogy meant to indicate that life started with sexual reproduction as opposed to just any chemical reaction between 2+ compounds that interacted and resulted in something new? Second, why would you assume that the question of how life originally arose is the same thing as how varieties of life come to be once life began?
 
2013-09-20 03:01:51 PM

Kome: Prophet of Loss: How cute, you think life started with sexual reproduction.

Two questions. First, why would you assume his analogy meant to indicate that life started with sexual reproduction as opposed to just any chemical reaction between 2+ compounds that interacted and resulted in something new? Second, why would you assume that the question of how life originally arose is the same thing as how varieties of life come to be once life began?

... natural selection would be to select the two most encyclopedia-like objects out of all of them

 
2013-09-20 03:01:51 PM

sprawl15: show me: No, natural selection would be to select the two most encyclopedia-like objects out of all of them, mixing their best features, reproducing them billions of times, and starting the process over again.

I can't say I've really tried, but I've never heard of someone getting two encyclopedias to mate. And you neo-Darwinists call my beliefs magic!


So you're being serious. Yes, my arguments may not be very  sound, but I am just pulling them out of memory. The last time I had a biology class was in the 1970s in high school. Read some Richard Dawkins if you want a real explanation of how it works.
 
2013-09-20 03:02:30 PM

show me: Prophet of Loss: show me: sprawl15: show me: So that's the argument. I hadn't seen it before. Too bad it ignores natural selection, arguably the most important part of evolution.

Natural selection would be picking the best encyclopedia that you pour out of a bucket. Since you never get an encyclopedia in the first place, there's nothing to select from

QED.

No, natural selection would be to select the two most encyclopedia-like objects out of all of them, mixing their best features, reproducing them billions of times, and starting the process over again. It's not an all-or-nothing one step process. And for fark's sake I hope you are playing devil's advocate and don't really believe that shiat.

How cute, you think life started with sexual reproduction. But, do tell us about it professor.

I said nothing about how life started, I was giving an example of how natural selection worked in sexual reproduction. But do keep talking out of your ass, Gilligan.


Ok professor if you say you didn't.
 
2013-09-20 03:16:55 PM

show me: sprawl15: show me: No, natural selection would be to select the two most encyclopedia-like objects out of all of them, mixing their best features, reproducing them billions of times, and starting the process over again.

I can't say I've really tried, but I've never heard of someone getting two encyclopedias to mate. And you neo-Darwinists call my beliefs magic!

So you're being serious. Yes, my arguments may not be very  sound, but I am just pulling them out of memory. The last time I had a biology class was in the 1970s in high school. Read some Richard Dawkins if you want a real explanation of how it works.


Simplistic, ignorant arguments hardly need Dawkins to refute.

Nine minutes of the evolution of clocks is all you need. It came out six years ago, but creationists are nothing if not good at ignoring information.
 
2013-09-20 03:18:27 PM

Dimensio: Consider the probability of amino acids simultaneously joining together in the exact configuration of your deoxyribonucleic acid sequences. Such an event is statistically impossible.


Not only is that event  statisticallyimpossible, it's  physically impossible, since DNA is not made out of proteins. It's made out of sugars, phosphates, and nucleotides. The most interesting element of  all of these things is that we have found each of them existing in space, far away from life to produce them. So not only is it possible, but it's highly probable that the earliest DNA molecules formed out of compounds already extant in the environment.

show me: No, natural selection would be to select the two most encyclopedia-like objects out of all of them, mixing their best features, reproducing them billions of times, and starting the process over again.


No, that's nothing like how natural selection would work. Natural selection is simply a tautology: that which survives  survives. In an abstract sense, we can view the environment as a  fitness function. Collections of phenotypes (often called "organisms") which score highly according to the rules of the fitness function are likely to survive and reproduce their genotype. Collections of phenotypes which score poorly are unlikely to survive and reproduce their genotype.

Natural selection is one key component of evolution. The other key component is variability. We need variations in genes, otherwise all organisms are going to do equally well against the selection function. The obvious, but mostly unimportant, source of variation is mutation. Since most mutations are deleterious, mutation doesn't provide a huge input for variation.

The least obvious, but possibly most important, is horizontal gene transfer- the movement of genes between organisms. This happens a great deal amongst the most common sorts of organisms, like bacteria. But even humans contain viral and bacteria genes in their DNA. And of course, some of the most important organelles in our cells are completely separate organisms which carry their own DNA.

The most obvious, and fairly important source of variation is sexual reproduction. This is a great adaptation. By shuffling one organism's genes with another's, you create hybrid vigor- while not every combination is going to win the genetic lottery, you reduce the chances of one phenotype tanking your entire gene-line (note- sexual reproduction is a 50/50 split in nearly every sexual species- there's some neat game-theory behind this, especially when you look at the energy commitment for reproducing (usually- but not always- higher for the female)).
 
2013-09-20 03:20:59 PM

Jubeebee: It came out six years ago, but creationists are nothing if not good at ignoring information.


If creationists could absorb new information and build theories based on evidence and not belief, there wouldn't be any creationists.
 
2013-09-20 03:21:14 PM
Entropy doesn't work backwards, libtards - it takes more energy to make order than it does to make chaos, so how did proteins self-organize if not for a Prime Mover organizing them?

Evolution's just a theory, but everyone knows about the Eternal, Unchanging Bible.
 
2013-09-20 03:24:37 PM
If evolution is supposed to be helped along with sexual reproduction, how come my penis is so small?

I don't believe in intelligent design though: I believe in sarcastic design.
 
2013-09-20 03:32:47 PM

t3knomanser: No, that's nothing like how natural selection would work.


Of course not. I was just trying to fit it into the stupid encyclopedia analogy and failed miserably. Instead of a fitness function, I brought up an outside source, since encyclopedias can't do any of this shiat. Which makes the original analogy stupid also.

/You guys have fun, it's time for me to go home
 
2013-09-20 03:35:16 PM

show me: And, perhaps more importantly, when we are shaking the bucket to try to make an Encyclopedia, it requires an outside force - us. But when we are talking about the creation of life, who is shaking the 'bucket' of genetic material and producing he who "may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground"? It has to be something external to what we think of as 'life' - an intelligent designer, beyond our ken, who spoke light and made it so.

So that's the argument. I hadn't seen it before. Too bad it ignores natural selection, arguably the most important part of evolution.


It also ignores the Sun, the best bucket shaker around.
 
2013-09-20 03:43:11 PM
"So rather than look for the RNA product of transcription we looked for the 'initiation machine' that makes the RNA. This machine assembles RNA polymerase, which goes on to make RNA, which goes on to make a protein." Pugh added that he and Venters were stunned to find 160,000 of these "initiation machines,"

evolution machines!!!!
that proves it.
 
2013-09-20 03:48:54 PM

sprawl15: The amount of information within the cell is equivalent to dozens of volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica


So if I gave you a plain-text copy of the contents of Encyclopedia Britannica for reference, and asked you -- an intelligent and purposeful creator with access to directed energy (and even other tools, so long as their use is not detectable in the finished work) -- to use no materials other than a bucket full of watery ink and blank bound book you would be able to reproduce the original work? Because I personally would have trouble diving the fonts, page layout, illustrations, etc., even if I could figure out how to apply water ink to the page.

If you're talking about the full set of data in the book and not just the information encoded in the text the data set is arguably much larger than the amount of data found in typical cellular DNA. If you're only talking about recreating the information that was encoded in text I'd suggest there's a very high probability that a bucket full of watery ink would re-deposit that information on one or more of the pages in the book, it's just that the encoding would reflect the limitations of the environment, rather than being directed for human consumption.
 
2013-09-20 03:51:00 PM
profplump:

I do not claim to be a creator of life, as that would be the sin of pride. So I do not accept the premise of your question.
 
2013-09-20 04:00:18 PM

sprawl15: profplump:

I do not claim to be a creator of life, as that would be the sin of pride. So I do not accept the premise of your question.


images.amcnetworks.com

Holy shiat folks, looks like we got us the new Bevets here! Drop down and give me twenty, Jesus freak!
 
2013-09-20 04:01:26 PM
Too many trolls in this thread baiting with creationist statements for me to take this thread seriously. Either that or I will be very ashamed of my species.
 
Displayed 50 of 69 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report